are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[Lula]

I want to know why we can't take care of America instead of trying to kiss the rest of the world's butt! Why do we owe China so much money? All of this makes no sense to me and I don't see things changing any time soon.

Lori

because we spent more than we take home.

Because American consumers have developed an insatiable appetite for cheaply made clothes, furniture, toys, etc., and we buy too much Chinese-made junk at Walmart and allow our companies to send jobs overseas. We import more than we export. But the one thing that we are good at exporting is American treasury bonds. Despite our woes, the U.S. is still seen as a safe place for foreign investment.

Lula, I'm finally digging into your article. It has started a great conversation between my econ-weenie-history-teacher husband and me. I've been bellowing parts of it to him as he shaves. (reading to each other things that we find interesting is something of a morning ritual around here) His comment, "Ah, the classic economic scenario: guns or butter. And off we go...

Back to reading some more. Thanks again for the link!

Yes, it is indeed a tale of guns and butter. Glad you are enjoying it-- although "enjoy" might not be the best choice of words.

Ah. But we'd have so much to discuss. I wasn't an econ aficionado until my husband started schooling me. And then we got a friend who has a masters in econ from the University of Edinburgh. It makes for some very interesting and informative conversations. Depressing ones though, because it shows what a tangled web it all is, which is why like you, I'm not sure there is much to be hoped for other than slowing it down a bit. Basically, we're screwed.

Another fun one to read is "The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street", which details the history of economic thought and how that oh-so wrong idea came to dominate, and how economics came to dominate everything pretty much. Follow that with "What's Not For Sale" a book about how market mentality is taking over traditionally non-market areas of life, and you have another set of the "enjoyable" reads.

Hubs said he's heard of Nixonland, although he hasn't read it. We do however, have pretty much everything Kevin Phillips has written, so the Southern Strategy is well covered in this house. I'm currently reading "The Price of Inequality" by Sitglitz, also a good read that lays it out pretty well.

And yeah, I like paying taxes too. It keeps me from having to step on starving children on my way to and from the car....

ksinger -- we'd have a lot to discuss, and we could share our libraries! I still read many things in hard copy format, though. I'm a dinosaur that way. Thanks for the book suggestions. I actually have a long-standing interest in reading about the foibles of Wall Street that stemmed from the "Greed is Good" era of the go-go 1980s.

 

[HollyS]

"It's just plain nutty! I never thought in my lifetime there would be a backlash against birth control." (MariaD)

Seriously??? Were you born after 1960?

There is NO serious backlash against birthcontrol - - outside of the Quiverfull movement and the likes of the Duggars. NONE.

Even Catholics use BC. They just don't confess it, 'cause even they aren't going to let a man in a dress (Pope) tell them what to do.

No one, in or out of the federal government, is telling you what you can do with your private parts and baby making equipment. And it's highly unlikely, to the point of being a never-gonna-happen scenario, that laws will ever be repealed or passed that would take your rights away. To think otherwise is to give into hyped up hysteria created by political parties to further their agenda. I prefer not to be a pawn in anyone's game. And I have sense enough to know when I'm being played.

Yes, I was born in 1961 actually, you?

Right wing obfuscation of the morning after pill with RU 486 = backlash against birth control. Chipping away at roe vs wade = backlash against birth control. Abstinence only sex ed = backlash. I'm not being played, I am rightfully worried. Not for me, as I'm beyond he age of this being a concern, but for my daughter and her generation. Never gonna happen scenario? That's what I would have said about the law in TX requiring non medically necessary ultrasounds in order to terminate a pregnancy, which by the way, I and the law consider birth control and not murder. That scenario did happen so who is being played here?

If you had quoted my entire post you would have had the part where I mentioned that I'm a former catholic and assert that many Catholics use birth control. I don't really get your point there. Mine was that the edicts of the pope should not dictate the medical coverage of church run organizations that employ non Catholics.

My point was that there is no REAL backlash against birth control or your reproductive rights. Just what is manufactured for the point of lathering you up. And, obviously, it is working.

 

[HollyS]

Maybe because it's LIbYa? Libya.

And really, its probably because it's far away. The economy, the unemployment rate, women's reproductive choices, healthcare, etc, that is all HERE. It's terrible that people lost their lives in Benghazi, but most people don't even read or watch the news, so there are LOT of people around the USA that don't even know about it.

I highly doubt that anyone here is going to change anyone else's minds. For instance, I already voted. You can't change my mind or my vote.

It's nice to know that this event means so little to you that you can shrug it off in favor of worrying over your already-in-place-and-protected-by-law birth control rights.

This attitude doesn't even deserve further comment, so I'll leave it there.

Oh Holly Holly Holly. That's not what I said, and you know it.

Again, lets revisit my above comment:
I'm implying that the general American public does not read the news or watch the news (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, whatever) and they are voting by a lot less (economy, the unemployment rate, women's reproductive choices, healthcare, etc) than the educated people discussing it here who are enlightened by many more issues.

I hit on a lot more than my birth control rights. Mine are currently protected for the next 6 years by the implant in my uterus anyway.

Don't go twisting the words I say to imply my attitude problem/lack of empathy/ignorance.

And for your information, I happen to have a very good friend who is currently living in a 3rd world country because her husband is a diplomat. This means plenty to me.

I didn't twist your words. I could quote you directly if you like? You metaphorically waved your hand at what was said about the overseas debacle because it did not concern you. You said it, in whatever words you chose, which may not be the exact words I chose. However, the meaning was clear and I did not misunderstand you. What is front and center and worthy of your concern is what is going on HERE at home. Or what you think is going on here at home. The other stuff is far, far away.

But you were probably thinking in the "editorial we" kinda way. PEOPLE aren't paying attention to overseas drama because PEOPLE are too worried about what is happening here. Yeah, not you in particular. But PEOPLE.

 

[Dancing Fire]

beebrisk and Holly S for President

 

[Maria D]

"It's just plain nutty! I never thought in my lifetime there would be a backlash against birth control." (MariaD)

Seriously??? Were you born after 1960?

There is NO serious backlash against birthcontrol - - outside of the Quiverfull movement and the likes of the Duggars. NONE.

Even Catholics use BC. They just don't confess it, 'cause even they aren't going to let a man in a dress (Pope) tell them what to do.

No one, in or out of the federal government, is telling you what you can do with your private parts and baby making equipment. And it's highly unlikely, to the point of being a never-gonna-happen scenario, that laws will ever be repealed or passed that would take your rights away. To think otherwise is to give into hyped up hysteria created by political parties to further their agenda. I prefer not to be a pawn in anyone's game. And I have sense enough to know when I'm being played.

Yes, I was born in 1961 actually, you?

Right wing obfuscation of the morning after pill with RU 486 = backlash against birth control. Chipping away at roe vs wade = backlash against birth control. Abstinence only sex ed = backlash. I'm not being played, I am rightfully worried. Not for me, as I'm beyond he age of this being a concern, but for my daughter and her generation. Never gonna happen scenario? That's what I would have said about the law in TX requiring non medically necessary ultrasounds in order to terminate a pregnancy, which by the way, I and the law consider birth control and not murder. That scenario did happen so who is being played here?

If you had quoted my entire post you would have had the part where I mentioned that I'm a former catholic and assert that many Catholics use birth control. I don't really get your point there. Mine was that the edicts of the pope should not dictate the medical coverage of church run organizations that employ non Catholics.

My point was that there is no REAL backlash against birth control or your reproductive rights. Just what is manufactured for the point of lathering you up. And, obviously, it is working.

Holly you aren't making a point at all. You ignore parts of posts that you don't agree with instead of entering into intelligent debate. The fact that the only way you can think of to support your argument (and I use that term loosely) that there's no backlash is to state, well no "real" backlash shows that you don't have much to support your opinion. I haven't been lathered up, I see the writing on the wall- it's pretty clear.

 

[HollyS]

This is a forum - - for expressing opinions.

We are not debating. And none of us has to answer another on a point by point basis.

And quoting factoids that appeal to me, but may be considered suspect by you, is not the way to back up my opinion. And vice versa. Others, quite obviously, do not hold this viewpoint.


Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

 

[beebrisk]

I must have missed something, but when did Governor Romney align himself "with people who say legitimate rape" never results in pregnancy?" I believe pretty much everyone in the Republican party distanced themselves from him, and Romney made it clear he did not share his misguided beliefs.

As far as seeing pregnant teenagers in the ER, my daughter volunteers in Womans and Infants hospital. And many of those teenagers have readily admitted they had access to birth control but either did not want to ruin the moment or could not be bothered. And this does say alot about today vs the 1950's. Many people today do not want to take responsibility for their actions. Why bother when the government will just bail you out.

Well, I used Akin's quote and Romney distanced himself from Akin, but perhaps I should have quoted Mourdock instead that pregnancy from rape is "God's will." Romney supports him. So wrong quote, same point.

Personal responsibility is of course a factor. However, I think the abstinence-only disaster is partially responsible for the lack of use of birth control even when we have access. There are so many myths and misconceptions about sex, birth control, condoms, etc, and these are being perpetuated by our schools. And that is primarily a Republican agenda.

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Obviously, I'm a woman. In no way do I feel my rights are being "chipped away". I have ALL the same rights, privileges AND responsibilities as as FI and every other man. Sure, my plumbing is different so some issues are separate, but I'm NOT unequal.

Romney legislated from the center in MA and I don't expect anything different from him if he becomes president. I will not be subjugated by voting for him. Despite the propaganda from the press and Sandra Fluke, I don't fear turning into a handmaiden, a Stepford Wife or a 2nd class citizen.

Perhaps if I could come up with one right bestowed on men that I don't have as a woman I'd feel differently about that. Perhaps if I didn't feel as if I was just as smart or strong as any man and able to stand up for myself I'd feel differently. But then, that would just be admitting I'm weak. That would just be admitting I am a victim--simply because I'm a woman. After all, isn't that what the women's movement has tried to teach us for the last 4 decades or so??

Speaking of the women's movement, they really ought to get on Obama about paying his female staff about 18% less than the men who work for him.

Abortion has survived 5 Republican presidents. It's still the law of the land. It's not going anywhere. Neither is access to birth control. Every Target and Walmart in America dispenses it for about $9/month. There's help available if that's not affordable. Thanks to Title X, low income and uninsured women have much greater access to free or low cost BC than they ever did before the law was signed. That law by the way, was conceived and signed by.....a Republican president.

Despite the current administration's politics of fear, I don't expect to be vacuuming the house in my dress and pearls, while preparing dinner and tending to my man's every last need. No one I know will be dying in a back ally abortion in this country.

This administration has been masterful at playing to the emotions of women with scare tactics and lies but pandering and patronizing does not equality make.

You know, I've always liked you, but I think we could be besties.

Thank you for being articulate without the snark that others here have freely dispensed.

But, then, they worship at the feet of a man who would use an interview in a mainstream publication to call his opponent a "bullshitter". He's a class act. I can see where they would have reason to be impressed.

Maybe he's merely feeling desperate and striking out. I believe his days are numbered. Gee, I'm so sad.

Ohhh...From your mouth, uh, keyboard to God's ears, Holly!

And I've ALWAYS thought we could be besties! You don't know how many times I've read your posts and I'm all like "There she goes again, hittin' the nail right on the head, that Holly"

As for the snark, I've been an enthusiastic practitioner in the past but decided to tone it down considerably. I mean really, I'm not in high school anymore. Also, I don't respond to a lot of it lately since I'm pretty sure ignoring it pisses 'em off more!

 

[beebrisk]

"It's just plain nutty! I never thought in my lifetime there would be a backlash against birth control." (MariaD)

Seriously??? Were you born after 1960?

There is NO serious backlash against birthcontrol - - outside of the Quiverfull movement and the likes of the Duggars. NONE.

Even Catholics use BC. They just don't confess it, 'cause even they aren't going to let a man in a dress (Pope) tell them what to do.

No one, in or out of the federal government, is telling you what you can do with your private parts and baby making equipment. And it's highly unlikely, to the point of being a never-gonna-happen scenario, that laws will ever be repealed or passed that would take your rights away. To think otherwise is to give into hyped up hysteria created by political parties to further their agenda. I prefer not to be a pawn in anyone's game. And I have sense enough to know when I'm being played.

Yes, I was born in 1961 actually, you?

Right wing obfuscation of the morning after pill with RU 486 = backlash against birth control. Chipping away at roe vs wade = backlash against birth control. Abstinence only sex ed = backlash. I'm not being played, I am rightfully worried. Not for me, as I'm beyond he age of this being a concern, but for my daughter and her generation. Never gonna happen scenario? That's what I would have said about the law in TX requiring non medically necessary ultrasounds in order to terminate a pregnancy, which by the way, I and the law consider birth control and not murder. That scenario did happen so who is being played here?

If you had quoted my entire post you would have had the part where I mentioned that I'm a former catholic and assert that many Catholics use birth control. I don't really get your point there. Mine was that the edicts of the pope should not dictate the medical coverage of church run organizations that employ non Catholics.

So you have an issue with separation of church and state? Because that's what you're advocating here. Are you saying that the government should dictate to the church how they should run their institution? Well, okay...open the floodgates...because that works both ways, you know.

 

[purplesparklies]

Dipping a toe in here......can someone explain why there is outrage that Viagra is covered but BC is not? To me, these are two completely different things. Viagra is a medication to correct a medical issue thus enabling a man to engage in the act of intercourse. Without it, he is unable perform as the male body should. With or without BC, a woman can engage in intercourse. The lack of insurance coverage of BC does not result in her inability to perform as her body should. If condoms were covered but oral birth control, diaphragm, IUD, etc..... were not covered, then I would understand the issue. Am I missing something here?

 

[AGBF]

Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

Hi, Holly-

Since 1973. Only it isn't, strictly speaking, "a law". It is a Supreme Court decision that became the law of the land. I looked it up to refresh my memory because I am not an attorney, just a former history teacher, and I have had no occasion to refer to Roe v. Wade in recent years. The following particulars are from what looked like a fairly reliable Internet site, but I will certainly not swear by it.

"Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
...

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:
All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others."

In my opinion there has already been considerable erosion of a woman's right to get a first trimester abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade was passed. Your own state of Texas has put up barriers such as the rape of women seeking lawful first term abortions by forcible transvaginal ultrasounds. My home state of Virginia tried to pass a similar law, but we voted it down.

If you believe abortion is murder, it is understandable that you would want laws like the one in Texas to stand. However, it is incorrect to say that Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being changed or dismantled. Roe v. Wade has already been changed. Women who want to see abortion kept safe and legal do, indeed, have something to worry about.

Before A Woman Can Get An Abortion In Texas: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/kristof-when-states-abuse-women.html?_r=0

Deb/AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

When the heck did being "rich" and "white" make a person inherently evil?

Mathew 19:24

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


As for the white part? Unsure about that but probably around 1600 when white people got together and agreed that the color of their skin makes them so superior to others that they felt justified in enslaving anyone who was NOT white. And that will endure until that sentiment-- that white= racial superiority goes away.

Really? Nothing else is working for Mr. Obama, so let's pull out the race card again?

Treadin' trodden trails.

For the love of Pete. No one was 'pulling out the race card." And no one was talking about Obama.
Beebrisk asked a question. I answered the question with my opinion of the correct answer. End of it.

 

[Gypsy]

Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

Hi, Holly-

Since 1973. Only it isn't, strictly speaking, "a law". It is a Supreme Court decision that became the law of the land. I looked it up to refresh my memory because I am not an attorney, just a former history teacher, and I have had no occasion to refer to Roe v. Wade in recent years. The following particulars are from what looked like a fairly reliable Internet site, but I will certainly not swear by it.

"Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
...

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:
All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others."

In my opinion there has already been considerable erosion of a woman's right to get a first trimester abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade was passed. Your own state of Texas has put up barriers such as the rape of women seeking lawful first term abortions by forcible transvaginal ultrasounds. My home state of Virginia tried to pass a similar law, but we voted it down.

If you believe abortion is murder, it is understandable that you would want laws like the one in Texas to stand. However, it is incorrect to say that Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being changed or dismantled. Roe v. Wade has already been changed. Women who want to see abortion kept safe and legal do, indeed, have something to worry about.

Before A Woman Can Get An Abortion In Texas: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/kristof-when-states-abuse-women.html?_r=0

Deb/AGBF

An Amendment to the Constitution can overrule the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party platform states that they want a Human Life Amendment added to the Constitution that would state that the fundamental right to life of the unborn overrides any right to privacy.
Further, the platform does NOT state that there would be ANY exceptions listed in such an Amendment. Not life of mother. Not rape. Not incest. Nothing.

 

[loriken214]

What is considered "the Middle Class" today? Both sides preach to maintain the middle class, but as I see it, the middle class has always paid the dues for this country. The wealthy get write offs and the poor need help. Who pays in the long run? Those of us who aren't wealthy or poor...stuck in the middle and loaded with tax burdens.

Romney doesn't have a clue about the middle class and what we go through. Obama keeps preaching about finding jobs for the middle class...all talk, no action. It is the same old crap every four years!

I don't care about abortion...it doesn't pertain to me. I care about tax reform and Medicare! We are ALL entitled to our own opinion without being chastised just because we don't agree with each other.

Our country is going downhill fast and I'm scared to see what it will be like in four years, either way.

Lori

 

[loriken214]

ETA: DH and I live in SE Texas and we haven't suffered a great deal like the rest of the country. Our standard of living is really good where we live...lots of jobs and low cost of living thanks to BIG OIL and all of the industries it supports. BITE ME if you object to the major oil companies! I worked for Exxon Mobil for 20 years before having to take a disability retirement. My Aunt Joanie worked for Exxon for 39 years. My late FIL worked for Gulf Oil for 37 years and his Father worked for Gulf Oil for 40 years. My Grandfather worked for Humble Oil (later Exxon) for 40 years.

Exxon is selling off their gas stations in the US because they don't make any money on them. They've lost money for years and only kept their stations to keep their name in the marketplace.

You can bitch and gripe about the cost of gasoline, but you still need to drive your car, boat, motorhome, etc. and you get a heck of a deal here in the USA compaired to the rest of the world. The government taxes a lot of the gas and that's why the prices are so high. Also, the speculators are guessing what the prices will be in the future and they are gambling with the prices.

The oil companies employ thousands of people and provide lots of jobs all over the country. This is one issue that I will stand up for and defend.

We pick our battles. What are Romney and Obama doing about this?

Lori

 

[beebrisk]

Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

Hi, Holly-

Since 1973. Only it isn't, strictly speaking, "a law". It is a Supreme Court decision that became the law of the land. I looked it up to refresh my memory because I am not an attorney, just a former history teacher, and I have had no occasion to refer to Roe v. Wade in recent years. The following particulars are from what looked like a fairly reliable Internet site, but I will certainly not swear by it.

"Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
...

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:
All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others."

In my opinion there has already been considerable erosion of a woman's right to get a first trimester abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade was passed. Your own state of Texas has put up barriers such as the rape of women seeking lawful first term abortions by forcible transvaginal ultrasounds. My home state of Virginia tried to pass a similar law, but we voted it down.

If you believe abortion is murder, it is understandable that you would want laws like the one in Texas to stand. However, it is incorrect to say that Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being changed or dismantled. Roe v. Wade has already been changed. Women who want to see abortion kept safe and legal do, indeed, have something to worry about.

Before A Woman Can Get An Abortion In Texas: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/kristof-when-states-abuse-women.html?_r=0

Deb/AGBF

An Amendment to the Constitution can overrule the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party platform states that they want a Human Life Amendment added to the Constitution that would state that the fundamental right to life of the unborn overrides any right to privacy.
Further, the platform does NOT state that there would be ANY exceptions listed in such an Amendment. Not life of mother. Not rape. Not incest. Nothing.

Platform Shmatform. Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned. Not in our lifetime, or our daughters' lifetime anyway. Abortion has been on the official Republican platform since the 70's. After 40 years of safe and legal abortion ON DEMAND, perhaps it's time for the hand wringing and teeth gnashing to stop.

I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that a party platform has anything to do with the way an administration legislates. Not to mention the fact that there are lightyears of distance between what is essentially a party's "mission and value statement" and a Constitutional amendment. Heck, on any given day when it comes to urgent matters of life and death, the platform holds up as well as a house of wet cards.

Case in point-- This is from the 2012 Dem platform:

The President and the Democratic Party understand that we have a special obligation to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman who puts their life on the line for our nation. We must send them into harm's way only when it's absolutely necessary. When we do, we must ensure they have the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done.

Tell that to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 Seals no longer with us. Ask them how meaningful the platform is.

So, if you're going to use a political platform for argument's sake as you did here; as an indication of a president's actual agenda, or as a glimpse into your real future, you ought to be REALLY angry at your own choice for president right about now..

 

[Dancing Fire]

The oil companies employ thousands of people and provide lots of jobs all over the country. This is one issue that I will stand up for and defend.
We pick our battles. What are Romney and Obama doing about this?

Lori

i agree...big oil co. employ thousands of people,pluse my cars does not run on water it runs on gas.

 

[beebrisk]

ETA: DH and I live in SE Texas and we haven't suffered a great deal like the rest of the country. Our standard of living is really good where we live...lots of jobs and low cost of living thanks to BIG OIL and all of the industries it supports. BITE ME if you object to the major oil companies! I worked for Exxon Mobil for 20 years before having to take a disability retirement. My Aunt Joanie worked for Exxon for 39 years. My late FIL worked for Gulf Oil for 37 years and his Father worked for Gulf Oil for 40 years. My Grandfather worked for Humble Oil (later Exxon) for 40 years.

Exxon is selling off their gas stations in the US because they don't make any money on them. They've lost money for years and only kept their stations to keep their name in the marketplace.

You can bitch and gripe about the cost of gasoline, but you still need to drive your car, boat, motorhome, etc. and you get a heck of a deal here in the USA compaired to the rest of the world. The government taxes a lot of the gas and that's why the prices are so high. Also, the speculators are guessing what the prices will be in the future and they are gambling with the prices.

The oil companies employ thousands of people and provide lots of jobs all over the country. This is one issue that I will stand up for and defend.

We pick our battles. What are Romney and Obama doing about this?

Lori

Lori,

I think it's great that you and your family were fortunate enough to have good, stable jobs; probably with nice salaries and excellent benefits. Good for you! I don't blame you one bit for defending it and personally, I'd never ask anyone to do so. It's as admirable a workplace as any other.

I don't gripe about the price of gas for a couple of reasons. 1. I live in NYC and don't own a car. I realize gas prices affect everything I buy however, so I'm not completely unfazed by it. I just don't have any direct contact with a gas pump. 2. The fluctuating prices of gasoline, refined oil, unrefined oil, etc., are frankly waaay too complicated and dull for me to figure out. I admit, I have little interest in this market and how it works.

What I DO gripe about however is the complete hypocrisy and "gasnesia"? of the media who incessantly hyped the "astronomical" price of gas at the end of GW Bush's term ($1.86) yet now, if it does gets a mention, the president's name is rarely if ever attached to prices hovering around the $4 mark. Man, that pis---s me off!

 

[AGBF]

Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

Hi, Holly-

Since 1973. Only it isn't, strictly speaking, "a law". It is a Supreme Court decision that became the law of the land. I looked it up to refresh my memory because I am not an attorney, just a former history teacher, and I have had no occasion to refer to Roe v. Wade in recent years. The following particulars are from what looked like a fairly reliable Internet site, but I will certainly not swear by it.

"Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
...

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:
All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others."

In my opinion there has already been considerable erosion of a woman's right to get a first trimester abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade was passed. Your own state of Texas has put up barriers such as the rape of women seeking lawful first term abortions by forcible transvaginal ultrasounds. My home state of Virginia tried to pass a similar law, but we voted it down.

If you believe abortion is murder, it is understandable that you would want laws like the one in Texas to stand. However, it is incorrect to say that Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being changed or dismantled. Roe v. Wade has already been changed. Women who want to see abortion kept safe and legal do, indeed, have something to worry about.

Before A Woman Can Get An Abortion In Texas: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/kristof-when-states-abuse-women.html?_r=0

Deb/AGBF

An Amendment to the Constitution can overrule the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party platform states that they want a Human Life Amendment added to the Constitution that would state that the fundamental right to life of the unborn overrides any right to privacy.
Further, the platform does NOT state that there would be ANY exceptions listed in such an Amendment. Not life of mother. Not rape. Not incest. Nothing.

Platform Shmatform. Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned. Not in our lifetime, or our daughters' lifetime anyway. Abortion has been on the official Republican platform since the 70's. After 40 years of safe and legal abortion ON DEMAND, perhaps it's time for the hand wringing and teeth gnashing to stop.

I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that a party platform has anything to do with the way an administration legislates. Not to mention the fact that there are lightyears of distance between what is essentially a party's "mission and value statement" and a Constitutional amendment. Heck, on any given day when it comes to urgent matters of life and death, the platform holds up as well as a house of wet cards.

Case in point-- This is from the 2012 Dem platform:

The President and the Democratic Party understand that we have a special obligation to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman who puts their life on the line for our nation. We must send them into harm's way only when it's absolutely necessary. When we do, we must ensure they have the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done.

Tell that to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 Seals no longer with us. Ask them how meaningful the platform is.

So, if you're going to use a political platform for argument's sake as you did here; as an indication of a president's actual agenda, or as a glimpse into your real future, you ought to be REALLY angry at your own choice for president right about now..

Well, now:

A) I think that if the Republican Party tells us they are going to outlaw abortion and then we vote them into office and they outlaw it, that we will have gotten just what we deserved! If I hear someone warning me he's about to take away a liberty of mine, I take notice.

B) What about the point I made? Not the point that the Republican platform does away with a woman's right to abortion, but that a woman's right to abortion has already been-quite illegally-whittled away (contrary to what Holly asserted). Roe v. Wade guarantees a first trimester abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, but the state has illegally inserted itself into the process more and more recently. When the state tells a woman and her doctor that she has to have a medically unnecessary vaginal intrusion, something is very, very sick. And something is very, very sick in Texas right now.

Deb/AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

Hi, Holly-

Since 1973. Only it isn't, strictly speaking, "a law". It is a Supreme Court decision that became the law of the land. I looked it up to refresh my memory because I am not an attorney, just a former history teacher, and I have had no occasion to refer to Roe v. Wade in recent years. The following particulars are from what looked like a fairly reliable Internet site, but I will certainly not swear by it.

"Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
...

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:
All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others."

In my opinion there has already been considerable erosion of a woman's right to get a first trimester abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade was passed. Your own state of Texas has put up barriers such as the rape of women seeking lawful first term abortions by forcible transvaginal ultrasounds. My home state of Virginia tried to pass a similar law, but we voted it down.

If you believe abortion is murder, it is understandable that you would want laws like the one in Texas to stand. However, it is incorrect to say that Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being changed or dismantled. Roe v. Wade has already been changed. Women who want to see abortion kept safe and legal do, indeed, have something to worry about.

Before A Woman Can Get An Abortion In Texas: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/kristof-when-states-abuse-women.html?_r=0

Deb/AGBF

An Amendment to the Constitution can overrule the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party platform states that they want a Human Life Amendment added to the Constitution that would state that the fundamental right to life of the unborn overrides any right to privacy.
Further, the platform does NOT state that there would be ANY exceptions listed in such an Amendment. Not life of mother. Not rape. Not incest. Nothing.

Platform Shmatform. Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned. Not in our lifetime, or our daughters' lifetime anyway. Abortion has been on the official Republican platform since the 70's. After 40 years of safe and legal abortion ON DEMAND, perhaps it's time for the hand wringing and teeth gnashing to stop.

I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that a party platform has anything to do with the way an administration legislates. Not to mention the fact that there are lightyears of distance between what is essentially a party's "mission and value statement" and a Constitutional amendment. Heck, on any given day when it comes to urgent matters of life and death, the platform holds up as well as a house of wet cards.

Case in point-- This is from the 2012 Dem platform:

The President and the Democratic Party understand that we have a special obligation to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman who puts their life on the line for our nation. We must send them into harm's way only when it's absolutely necessary. When we do, we must ensure they have the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done.

Tell that to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 Seals no longer with us. Ask them how meaningful the platform is.

So, if you're going to use a political platform for argument's sake as you did here; as an indication of a president's actual agenda, or as a glimpse into your real future, you ought to be REALLY angry at your own choice for president right about now..

Well, now:

A) I think that if the Republican Party tells us they are going to outlaw abortion and then we vote them into office and they outlaw it, that we will have gotten just what we deserved! If I hear someone warning me he's about to take away a liberty of mine, I take notice.

B) What about the point I made? Not the point that the Republican platform does away with a woman's right to abortion, but that a woman's right to abortion has already been-quite illegally-whittled away (contrary to what Holly asserted). Roe v. Wade guarantees a first trimester abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, but the state has illegally inserted itself into the process more and more recently. When the state tells a woman and her doctor that she has to have a medically unnecessary vaginal intrusion, something is very, very sick. And something is very, very sick in Texas right now.

Deb/AGBF

I think if abortion is defined as healthcare, if the conversation is about women's "reproductive health" as the pro choice lobby defines it, then a doctor has an obligation to show a woman exactly how an actual abortion will "restore" her health. Every state has specific requirements and regulations regarding a whole host of medical practices and procedures.

When I had a broken foot, the doctor took an xray and showed me what it looked like. When I had uterine fibroids, the doctor ordered an ultrasound and showed me what they look like. Along with her observations and recommendations, I was able to make an INFORMED choice about how I wanted to treat them.

Of course we've all seen photos of fetuses at various stages, but unless we see our own we really, truly can't grasp it. There's zero personal connection.

When a doctor orders an ultrasound for most mothers, there's excitement in knowing that they'll soon see their baby on a computer monitor and even get to take a keepsake photo home with them. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's any less of a real, live baby. Good for the state of Texas for requiring doctors to INFORM in the best way medically possible, all about the procedure the woman AND their baby will endure.

So there in a nutshell, is what I think of the point you made. I'd venture to guess you disagree.

 

[AGBF]

I think if abortion is defined as healthcare, if the conversation is about women's "reproductive health" as the pro choice lobby defines it, then a doctor has an obligation to show a woman exactly how an actual abortion will "restore" her health. Every state has specific requirements and regulations regarding a whole host of medical practices and procedures.

When I had a broken foot, the doctor took an xray and showed me what it looked like. When I had uterine fibroids, the doctor ordered an ultrasound and showed me what they look like. Along with her observations and recommendations, I was able to make an INFORMED choice about how I wanted to treat them.

Of course we've all seen photos of fetuses at various stages, but unless we see our own we really, truly can't grasp it. There's zero personal connection.

When a doctor orders an ultrasound for most mothers, there's excitement in knowing that they'll soon see their baby on a computer monitor and even get to take a keepsake photo home with them. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's any less of a real, live baby. Good for the state of Texas for requiring doctors to INFORM in the best way medically possible, all about the procedure the woman AND their baby will endure.

So there in a nutshell, is what I think of the point you made. I'd venture to guess you disagree.

I'm not sure of your point, beebrisk, so I'm not sure if I disagree with it. Roe v. Wade said the decision about abortion was between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor thought she needed to see an ultrasound for the good of her health, the doctor would no doubt perform one and show it to her. But now in some states the state tells the woman and her doctor that someone must do a transvaginal sonogram-contrary to Roe v. Wade which mandates that there be no intereference between a woman and her doctor in first trimester abortions. That's different. That's state interference between a woman and her doctor. And it's illegal. So women's rights have been abridged.

AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

Roe v. Wade has been a law since . . . when???? After 40+ years, it should be obvious by now, a lot of societal changes would need to be made (which are not forthcoming) for this law to be overturned, ignored, bypassed, or changed. You have no worries. But you are kept worrying for the purposes of a political party. I could quote chapter and verse of some source somewhere that would "back me up", but you wouldn't accept their take, so what would be the point? So, for the sake of argument, this is my opinion - - not a factoid dredged up to satisfy anyone.

An Amendment to the Constitution can overrule the Supreme Court.
The Republican Party platform states that they want a Human Life Amendment added to the Constitution that would state that the fundamental right to life of the unborn overrides any right to privacy.
Further, the platform does NOT state that there would be ANY exceptions listed in such an Amendment. Not life of mother. Not rape. Not incest. Nothing.

Platform Shmatform. Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned. Not in our lifetime, or our daughters' lifetime anyway. Abortion has been on the official Republican platform since the 70's. After 40 years of safe and legal abortion ON DEMAND, perhaps it's time for the hand wringing and teeth gnashing to stop.

I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that a party platform has anything to do with the way an administration legislates. Not to mention the fact that there are lightyears of distance between what is essentially a party's "mission and value statement" and a Constitutional amendment. Heck, on any given day when it comes to urgent matters of life and death, the platform holds up as well as a house of wet cards...
So, if you're going to use a political platform for argument's sake as you did here; as an indication of a president's actual agenda, or as a glimpse into your real future, you ought to be REALLY angry at your own choice for president right about now..

The Republican Party has been, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PLATFORM, appointing conservative Pro-life Justices so that they can, IN FACT, over-turn Roe V. Wade.

In fact the REASON that legislators have have been introducing bills like the Protect Lift Act (sponsored by Paul Ryan) is because they WANT these laws challenged is to allow the increasingly conservative court to find ways to curtail Roe v. Wade further.

It's a Chess Game. And the very platform you dismiss as irrelevant above is WINNING.

Do you really not understand that Roe v Wade doesn't have to be overturned in order to be curtailed to a point that it is EFFECTIVELY impinged upon to such an extent that IT MIGHT AS WELL have been overturned? I mean, maybe you don't consider it worth following, but I do.

In the 19 years that I've been allowed to vote I've watched state and state pass laws that restrict abortion. And ruling after ruling that holds these CONSTITUTIONAL and I've read-- heck I've studied in lawschool (in a Jesuit institution no less)-- the rulings by the increasingly conservative Court that justifies these laws and bit by bit chips away the rulings of Roe v Wade.

"In 1992, the court rendered one of its most important decisions on abortion rights since Roe. In
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court reaffirmed Roe, while at the
same time sharply restricting its protections. The Casey court abandoned the strict scrutiny
standard of review and adopted a less protective standard that allows states to impose
restrictions as long as they do not “unduly burden” a woman’s right to choose. Under this new
standard, the court approved state restrictions that it had previously found to violate the right
to privacy and effectively invited states to impose barriers on women’s access to abortion.
Indeed, under Casey’s looser standard, courts have allowed a multitude of state restrictions to
be imposed upon reproductive freedom and choice. Casey opened the floodgates to a relentless,
purposeful effort on the part of anti-choice forces to erode and burden the right to choose—
rendering it unavailable for many and more difficult and dangerous for others.
As the pro-choice community strives to fulfill the promise of Roe for all women by working to
secure better access to effective methods of contraception, comprehensive sex education, and
quality health and child care, we remain locked in a struggle against efforts to eliminate the
right to choose altogether.
In June 2000, the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on the right to choose since
Casey. Emphatically maintaining the centrality of women’s health and striking down
Nebraska’s ban on abortion care as early as the 12th week in pregnancy, the court’s ruling in
Stenberg v. Carhart was won by the slimmest of margins, 5-4, with Justice O’Connor casting the
deciding vote...[O'Connor then retired]

The 2007 outcome of the Federal Abortion Ban cases of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Gonzales v. Carhart28 illustrated the... direction in which the Roberts court had moved. In upholding a
nationwide ban on a safe second-trimester abortion method with no exception to protect the
health of the woman, the court paved the way for further setbacks to reproductive freedom and
personal privacy."


This is not PARANOIA. It's fact. It's reality. And ignoring it. Claiming it's hysteria induced by the media. Ridiculing it doesn't make it less REAL. And less of a threat.

And this from a woman who, if she got pregnant tomorrow, would keep the child regardless of my political news OR the fact that I do not want (ever) a biological child.

 

[Gypsy]

And for the record:

" Here's a rundown of other extreme anti-abortion measures Ryan cosponsored:

The Sanctity of Human Life Act: This bill would have written into law that zygotes are legal people from the moment of conception. Like other, similar bills, it grants fertilized eggs the same rights as adult humans, and would make in vitro fertilization and some forms of contraception the legal equivalents of murder.
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act: Ryan cosponsored this bill in 2006, 2007, and 2010. It would require doctors to provide medically dubious information to all women seeking an abortion after 20 weeks gestation. The bill includes specific language that the Department of Health and Human Services would need to include in a brochure that doctors would be required to give to women. The brochure includes language like "the process of being killed in an abortion will cause your unborn child pain." It would also require doctors to offer "anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug" for the fetus.
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act: This bill, introduced in 2005, 2007, and 2011, federalizes state laws on parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. The bill requires doctors to notify the minor's parent or guardian in writing and wait 24 hours before providing an abortion.
The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: This 2012 bill would ban abortions in the capital after 20 weeks gestation. It failed in the House on July 31.

In addition to cosponsoring these bills, Ryan has cast 59 votes on abortion issues, all of them anti-choice."

That Platform? Alive and well.

 

[FrekeChild]

Maybe because it's LIbYa? Libya.

And really, its probably because it's far away. The economy, the unemployment rate, women's reproductive choices, healthcare, etc, that is all HERE. It's terrible that people lost their lives in Benghazi, but most people don't even read or watch the news, so there are LOT of people around the USA that don't even know about it.

I highly doubt that anyone here is going to change anyone else's minds. For instance, I already voted. You can't change my mind or my vote.

It's nice to know that this event means so little to you that you can shrug it off in favor of worrying over your already-in-place-and-protected-by-law birth control rights.

This attitude doesn't even deserve further comment, so I'll leave it there.

Oh Holly Holly Holly. That's not what I said, and you know it.

Again, lets revisit my above comment:
I'm implying that the general American public does not read the news or watch the news (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, whatever) and they are voting by a lot less (economy, the unemployment rate, women's reproductive choices, healthcare, etc) than the educated people discussing it here who are enlightened by many more issues.

I hit on a lot more than my birth control rights. Mine are currently protected for the next 6 years by the implant in my uterus anyway.

Don't go twisting the words I say to imply my attitude problem/lack of empathy/ignorance.

And for your information, I happen to have a very good friend who is currently living in a 3rd world country because her husband is a diplomat. This means plenty to me.

I didn't twist your words. I could quote you directly if you like? You metaphorically waved your hand at what was said about the overseas debacle because it did not concern you. You said it, in whatever words you chose, which may not be the exact words I chose. However, the meaning was clear and I did not misunderstand you. What is front and center and worthy of your concern is what is going on HERE at home. Or what you think is going on here at home. The other stuff is far, far away.

But you were probably thinking in the "editorial we" kinda way. PEOPLE aren't paying attention to overseas drama because PEOPLE are too worried about what is happening here. Yeah, not you in particular. But PEOPLE.

And really, its probably because it's far away. The economy, the unemployment rate, women's reproductive choices, healthcare, etc, that is all HERE. It's terrible that people lost their lives in Benghazi, but most people don't even read or watch the news, so there are LOT of people around the USA that don't even know about it.

But you took it out of context the first go around. My words were in response to Mayk's question of "Why doesn't anyone care about Libya?!" I was responding to her. Not about myself but why other people "don't care".*

I quoted myself. I KNOW ABOUT BENGHAZI AND LIBYA. I WATCH THE NEWS AND READ THE NEWSPAPER. The average American doesn't. The average American doesn't watch the debates or research online. They may listen to family or friends, but unfortunately the majority of Americans are more distracted by the last season of Jersey Shore. I have a lot of free time, since all I do is watch a kid all day long. But other people have jobs and families to take care of. They don't have time to put in the effort to research that you and I have.

I think that Obama can keep us safer than Romney. Why? Because the rest of the world thinks Romney sucks. Except for Iran, Nepal and Oman, the world is purple or blue, according to this website:

http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/polls/results/usvote2012/

That's not the only website publishing those kinds of numbers.

Do you remember what a fool Romney made of himself when he went to Europe?! England is one of our closest allies!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ympics-gaffe-overshadows-visit-to-London.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international...uring-mitt-romney-s-europe-trip-a-847421.html

Yikes.

I mentioned my friend who is in a third world country. I didn't mention my other friend who is currently in Afghanistan doing government contractor work- I've known him since we were 11. He's in the line of fire too, and talks about gunshots, bombshells and has gone so far as to post pictures of his own war wounds. But there isn't anything I can do about either of those people. I trust my president to do his best to try to protect them. I don't think Obama wants to see anyone else die, but he can't be perfect.

I really think he had about as much control over Benghazi that Bush had over 9/11.

And Holly, I know you're past childbearing age, but I'm not. I just had one last year. It was a girl. I don't want her reproductive rights to be up in the air. I'll do everything in my power to prevent her from having an unwanted pregnancy, but I want her to have access to birth control and heaven forbid, abortion. So yes, this issue hits home. Unemployment hits home. Gas prices hit home. Healthcare hits home (please don't get me started on healthcare - I know and care entirely too much about this subject.)

But you can go on thinking I'm ignorant.

* I do not include myself in the general people who don't care because they don't know group.

 

[FrekeChild]

Dipping a toe in here......can someone explain why there is outrage that Viagra is covered but BC is not? To me, these are two completely different things. Viagra is a medication to correct a medical issue thus enabling a man to engage in the act of intercourse. Without it, he is unable perform as the male body should. With or without BC, a woman can engage in intercourse. The lack of insurance coverage of BC does not result in her inability to perform as her body should. If condoms were covered but oral birth control, diaphragm, IUD, etc..... were not covered, then I would understand the issue. Am I missing something here?

Viagra is a means for males to have sex.
BC is a means for females to have sex, but prevent pregnancy.

The difference is that women can get pregnant, and men cannot. Pregnancy is very expensive for insurance companies, as well as for women.

Usually Viagra is used by men who are past prime "child-raising" age (instead of child-bearing, like I would use for a woman).

So basically Viagra is a free ticket for men to go copulate all they want to, whether they impregnate someone or not. They just don't want women to have sex for fun, just for reproductive purposes.

This is how I understand it anyway.

 

[justginger]

Freke said (sorry, my quotes aren't working properly):

I think that Obama can keep us safer than Romney. Why? Because the rest of the world thinks Romney sucks. Except for Iran, Nepal and Oman, the world is purple or blue, according to this website:

http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/polls/results/usvote2012/

That's not the only website publishing those kinds of numbers.


This argument never holds water with Americans, for some reason. The average (I stress average, there are always exceptions) American is of the opinion that what happens in America is of NO CONCERN to the rest of the world. That mindset was possible a few decades ago, when the US practiced isolationist foreign policy and the world's financial and monetary systems were not so seamlessly attached. Unfortunately now we've got American troops stationed all over the world, participating in training, drills, skirmishes, and all out warfare - with assistance from 'the Allies' of course. TWENTY EIGHT other countries have lost lives in Afghanistan, following the directives of the American military who pleaded for assistance. It must be one way or the other - either you want the world involved in American politics that may dictate the loss of their own citizens' lives, or you do not. Not to mention the way we all watched world economy after world economy slide into recession following the TERRIBLE banking decisions, governed by American law, of the US banking system. These days, no country is an island. The effects of decisions made in the United States reverberate around the world. It is unwise to think that the citizens of the world, who are remarkably well-informed and educated about American politics and economic policies, do not have good insight into which leader would be best for the world as a whole. But, again, the average American doesn't give a toss about the price of tea in China...

 

[Aoife]

I want to thank Freke, Gypsy, AGBF and others for so competently discussing the issues, especially the reproductive rights issues, that are at risk in the current political climate. I'm long past the age when contraception is an issue for me, but I'm old enough to remember when if you were not married, getting a prescription for BC pills involved telling your gynecologist elaborate stories so he (always a "he" in those days) could prescribe them therapeutically, rather than just to avoid pregnancy. I also remember having an OB-gyn ask me if my husband "approved" of the form of birth control I was interested in. The chip, chip, chipping away of a woman's right to choose what happens in her own body has been a policy among certain conservatives for years, and is finally overt enough that my DH, who leans much more to the right than I do, finally acknowledged it 4 years ago and switched parties. Access to contraception and the morning-after pill may be academic for me, but it is not academic for our daughters, and countless other women.

We've already cast our votes in the current election, and, aside from continuing to donate to both the presidential and congressional campaigns, there's not much more that we can do. However, the economic, foreign policy, and social implications if Romney manages to get elected are keeping me awake at night. I can't think of any election in the past 50 years that has scared me as much as this one does.

 

[beebrisk]

I want to thank Freke, Gypsy, AGBF and others for so competently discussing the issues, especially the reproductive rights issues, that are at risk in the current political climate. I'm long past the age when contraception is an issue for me, but I'm old enough to remember when if you were not married, getting a prescription for BC pills involved telling your gynecologist elaborate stories so he (always a "he" in those days) could prescribe them therapeutically, rather than just to avoid pregnancy. I also remember having an OB-gyn ask me if my husband "approved" of the form of birth control I was interested in. The chip, chip, chipping away of a woman's right to choose what happens in her own body has been a policy among certain conservatives for years, and is finally overt enough that my DH, who leans much more to the right than I do, finally acknowledged it 4 years ago and switched parties. Access to contraception and the morning-after pill may be academic for me, but it is not academic for our daughters, and countless other women.

We've already cast our votes in the current election, and, aside from continuing to donate to both the presidential and congressional campaigns, there's not much more that we can do. However, the economic, foreign policy, and social implications if Romney manages to get elected are keeping me awake at night. I can't think of any election in the past 50 years that has scared me as much as this one does.

If you can tell me exactly which conservatives, other than the Catholic church or another religious institution, are trying to deny ACCESS to birth control pills, IUD's, diaphragms or over the counter spermacides, I'd like to know. And I'm not talking about the concern surrounding the dispensing of it in middle or high school...which is a whole other issue.

Conservatives are rather pro-BC actually. We just don't want to pay for yours by way of higher insurance premiums for all. We don't want to cover your abortion with our tax dollars either.

If the idea is that abortion IS a form of birth control that should enjoy complete, unregulated and unfettered access (and I think I saw that stated earlier in the thread) then what happens to the classic and often used pro-choice argument and indignant cry that it's "NOT USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL"??

 

[Aoife]

If you can tell me exactly which conservatives, other than the Catholic church or another religious institution, are trying to deny ACCESS to birth control pills, IUD's, diaphragms or over the counter spermacides, I'd like to know. And I'm not talking about the concern surrounding the dispensing of it in middle or high school...which is a whole other issue.

Conservatives are rather pro-BC actually. We just don't want to pay for yours by way of higher insurance premiums for all. We don't want to cover your abortion with our tax dollars either.

If the idea is that abortion IS a form of birth control that should enjoy complete, unregulated and unfettered access (and I think I saw that stated earlier in the thread) then what happens to the classic and often used pro-choice argument and indignant cry that it's "NOT USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL"??

The language in the Ryan bill quoted above by Gypsy is perfectly clear. If a fertilized egg is defined as having legal personhood, any form of contraception that prevents implantation could be defined as murder. This is exactly how birth control pills work. They prevent the implantation of an egg. This kind of legislation has been discussed and advocated for years among some conservatives. While some conservatives may well be pro-BC, many, many others are not, and they are a fringe movement that is gaining some momentum.

Birth control pills are the single most effective form of birth control, aside from abstinence. IUD's are not an option for most women who haven't given birth, and diaphragms and spermicides have a much lower effective rate.

 

[justginger]

"It's just plain nutty! I never thought in my lifetime there would be a backlash against birth control." (MariaD)

Seriously??? Were you born after 1960?

There is NO serious backlash against birthcontrol - - outside of the Quiverfull movement and the likes of the Duggars. NONE.

Even Catholics use BC. They just don't confess it, 'cause even they aren't going to let a man in a dress (Pope) tell them what to do.

No one, in or out of the federal government, is telling you what you can do with your private parts and baby making equipment. And it's highly unlikely, to the point of being a never-gonna-happen scenario, that laws will ever be repealed or passed that would take your rights away. To think otherwise is to give into hyped up hysteria created by political parties to further their agenda. I prefer not to be a pawn in anyone's game. And I have sense enough to know when I'm being played.

Yes, I was born in 1961 actually, you?

Right wing obfuscation of the morning after pill with RU 486 = backlash against birth control. Chipping away at roe vs wade = backlash against birth control. Abstinence only sex ed = backlash. I'm not being played, I am rightfully worried. Not for me, as I'm beyond he age of this being a concern, but for my daughter and her generation. Never gonna happen scenario? That's what I would have said about the law in TX requiring non medically necessary ultrasounds in order to terminate a pregnancy, which by the way, I and the law consider birth control and not murder. That scenario did happen so who is being played here?

If you had quoted my entire post you would have had the part where I mentioned that I'm a former catholic and assert that many Catholics use birth control. I don't really get your point there. Mine was that the edicts of the pope should not dictate the medical coverage of church run organizations that employ non Catholics.

So you have an issue with separation of church and state? Because that's what you're advocating here. Are you saying that the government should dictate to the church how they should run their institution? Well, okay...open the floodgates...because that works both ways, you know.

Speaking of separation of church and state...how can Republican no-exclusion anti-choice candidates justify their platform without, in essence, challenging the separation of church and state? When you campaign that a 20 year old woman, having been raped and fallen pregnant, is experiencing "God's will" and has no right to access personal medical care, I am perplexed. What if she isn't Christian, choosing to live her life as an atheist instead? To her, there is no such thing as God's will, especially not in her uterus - and legally, she is entitled to those beliefs. That is one of the most obvious and inarguable parts of our Constitution, clearly outlined in the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson: “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights...Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” And Madison: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

I don't understand how staunch conservatives can scream the house down regarding the right to deny birth control coverage by Church establishments because that qualifies are religious freedom, but then turn around and force their Christian ideals on the entirety of American womankind when it comes to their choice to not procreate. I prefer it one way or the other, thanks. Women already have quite enough double standards to suffer under.

 

[AGBF]

If you can tell me exactly which conservatives, other than the Catholic church or another religious institution, are trying to deny ACCESS to birth control pills, IUD's, diaphragms or over the counter spermacides, I'd like to know. And I'm not talking about the concern surrounding the dispensing of it in middle or high school...which is a whole other issue.

Conservatives are rather pro-BC actually. We just don't want to pay for yours by way of higher insurance premiums for all. We don't want to cover your abortion with our tax dollars either.

If the idea is that abortion IS a form of birth control that should enjoy complete, unregulated and unfettered access (and I think I saw that stated earlier in the thread) then what happens to the classic and often used pro-choice argument and indignant cry that it's "NOT USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL"??

In what way are conservatives pro-birth control? What do they do that sets them apart from the general populace as more pro-active for birth control?

We know that conservatives stand ready to pay for those punitive transvaginal ultrasounds ordered by the State of Texas when a woman chooses to have her legally sanctioned first trimester abortion with her doctor's consent under the terms of Roe v. Wade. Somehow the conservatives find the money to pay for those ultrasounds. Or maybe (like the socialist dictator they accused President Obama of being when he dared to ask people to buy THEIR OWN health insurance) the State of Texas makes the women who want abortions pay for their OWN unwanted transvaginal ultrasounds! I don't know which is worse!

AGBF